The Rabbit Hole Of "The Explosive” Arizona Senate Testimony

I came across this topic late last night when someone posted it on another website. Seems they took a deep dive down the rabbit hole for a couple days trying to get some clarity on testimony given before a select committee on voter fraud in Arizona the other day. The allegations were described as being explosive so it drew my attention. I spent some time last night listening to one of the video's presented while having spent part of the day listening to the rest. The author of the article I was reading advised at the end to trust your instincts as he felt there were major red flags presented in the unfolding story. This may be true but whether the unfolding revelations are intuitively tied to a fathers love for his son or some other reasoning what often happens they are often looked at in the confines of which were scripted rather than a overall bigger picture. This often happens especially if there's a politically leaning that favors whichever particular side of the political aisle one is standing on, people tend to get clouded up in those emotions. In this case the emotions run high.

Let's take out of the equation any reasoning that led to the revelations that'd have any emotional attachments concerning his son. This is easy to do because regardless if that was the drive involved it doesn't matter which side, if any, drove it the end result is obviously or would be obviously clear, a fathers love for his son. It doesn't matter who the hostage takers are or who could resolve the hostage taking situation, if that's at play here, the facts presented should still be able to stand on their own. It could just as easily be a monetary motivation. Wouldn't be the first time that money was thicker than blood. Here's where it gets dicey.

Mr Thayer, a resident of Arizona claims that during the normal course of his job he runs across evidence of his wife's involvement in an criminal enterprise of money laundering, among a host of other ills. I said wife because most are led to believe the two are divorced but they aren't according to one of the video interviews he gave. The filing was false which, he said, makes the whole thing even more contorted. What he meant by that your guess is as good as mine. Since he said that recently, as of a couple days ago, than it's obvious he's still married. Mr Thayer, taking the revelations of his investigation proceeded to file a compliant against his wife in court. But not in an Arizona court where it would have standing but in a court in California. The wife than files to have the case dismissed due to a lack of standing.

Plaintiff John Thaler, a licensed attorney, initiated this case in the United States District Court for the District of California. (Doc. 1.) His 83-page complaint named as defendants a slew of persons and entities, nearly all of whom are citizens of Arizona and none of whom are citizens of California. Defendants Brittany Rae Thaler and Dawna Rae Chavez each appeared specially and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Docs. 9, 11.) The district court later issued an order directing Mr. Thaler to show cause why the case should not be dismissed or transferred to the District of Arizona for lack of venue. (Doc. 45.) Mr. Thaler failed to persuade the district court that the Central District of California was a proper venue, resulting in an order transferring the case to this Court. (Doc. 50.) After receiving the case, this Court dismissed Mr. Thaler's claims against one defendant on the basis of judicial immunity, and against all other defendants except Ms. Thaler and Ms. Chavez due to lack of service. (Docs. 60, 76.) 1

Once the case moves toward dismissal Ms Thayer than ask the court to find Mr Thayer a vexatious litigant. This is an important point as you will see moving forward. The court ultimately decides Ms Thayer no matter how frivolous and fantastical they found his compliant it wasn't significant enough to grant her request of being vexatious. The court does though grant that the case be dismissed with prejudice.

Ms. Thaler then filed motions to dismiss (Doc. 68) and to declare Mr. Thaler a vexatious litigant (Doc. 64). Ms. Thaler also filed an objection to Mr. Thaler's first amended complaint (Doc. 85), which the Court construes as a motion to strike. Ms. Chavez joined in the latter two motions. (Docs. 69, 86.) Subsequently, Mr. Thaler filed a motion requesting that the Court dismiss this case because he intends to file a different lawsuit based on new information. (Doc. 88.) Mr. Thaler's motion is internally inconsistent, however, because on page 12 he asks for a dismissal without prejudice, but on page 14 he requests a dismissal with prejudice.

Given Mr. Thaler's recent filing, all parties agree that this case should be dismissed in some fashion. The Court will grant Ms. Thaler's motion to dismiss this case with prejudice because this case is frivolous. Mr. Thaler's prolix complaint alleges that Ms. Thaler, motivated by a fear a poverty, has engaged in an array of criminal enterprises across multiple states, including money laundering and tax evasion, allegedly accomplished via real estate transactions and non-profit organizations; insurance fraud, allegedly accomplished via phony personal injury claims made on behalf of non-existent persons; skimming money from state-run aid programs; narcotics trafficking; hacking into state databases and fabricating public records; bribing public officials, including judges, police officers, judicial assistants, inspectors, assessors, and accountants; bribing private professionals, such as real estate agents and brokers; bankruptcy fraud; election fraud, allegedly accomplished by creating fake ballots and manipulating others in order to influence, among other races, the 2020 election for Maricopa County Recorder; extortion via “crypto-viruses”; the creation of fake employees on payroll systems in order to collect paychecks and benefits; and murder. What's more, Mr. Thaler alleges that high-ranking government and judicial officials in Maricopa County and the City of Mesa are in on the racketeering enterprise. Mr. Thaler's complaint weaves a delusional and fantastical narrative that does not comport with federal pleading standards. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (case is frivolous if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless” in that they are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and/or “delusional”). 2

This leaves, Ms. Thaler's motion asking the Court to declare Mr. Thaler a vexatious litigant. Although the Court has the authority to enjoin abusive litigants from future access to the courts, that authority should be exercised only rarely. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007); De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). Before imposing such an injunction, the Court must provide the litigant with notice of the impending injunction and an opportunity to oppose it. De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147. The Court must also develop an adequate record for review, including “a listing of all the cases and motions that led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed.” Id. The Court must make a substantive finding of “the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions.” Id. at 1148 (quotation and citation omitted). Litigiousness alone is not enough; the court must consider “both the number and content of the filings.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted).

Here, the Court has concerns about the frivolous and potentially harassing nature of Mr. Thaler's filings. With that said, as far as this Court can tell, this is Mr. Thaler's first federal lawsuit. Although he recent filed a second-Thaler v. Chavez, et al, No. 2:22-cv-00749-JAT-JZB-the Court finds it is premature to impose the strong and rare remedy of an abusive litigant injunction. There currently is not a sufficient record of frivolous and harassing lawsuits against Ms. Thaler in this district. However, should Mr. Thaler continue filing similar delusional and fantastical complaints against Ms. Thaler, this order may serve as part of the record that might one day support issuance of an abusive litigant injunction. For now, though, the Court denies the request.

IT IS ORDERED that Ms. Thaler's motion to dismiss, which Ms. Chavez joins, (Docs. 68, 69) is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Thaler's motion to declare Mr. Thaler a vexatious litigant (Doc. 64) is DENIED. 3

Why this is important is because it's openly shields her from retaliation and threats from those within the organizations that she was working with. He states there was the option of going into witness protection but Ms Thayer didn't want to go that route because she'd have to write down all crimes she'd ever been involved with. This would also prove that moving forward he was moving forward all on his own and his wife would not be cooperating nor could she be dragged into cooperating with her husband, or be found guilty by her husband of the accusations he sat forth of her as long the case had been dismissed with prejudice. Though it was noted this was his first federal case any lawyer would know you have to file cases in jurisdictions that are relevant to the case. As far as anyone can assume is this was a preparatory move to shield his wife and son as he prepared to move forward with his accusations against powerful people. We cannot at this point assume the whole story of corrupt individuals refusing to serve court orders of return of his son are true as they could be just as fictitious as he claimed the divorce papers were. This is why I say one has to remove all emotional ties and baggage from the story, things just don't add up. It's true she could be on the lamb with their son, it could be true they are being held hostage, it could be true they are being shielded by people with a financial stake in all this, and it could just as easily be true he's still with her cozied up on some couch in a secret location continuing on adding to their book of corruption which is due out soon. Those are the realities one is left to ponder in all this. Best to just detached yourself from all the background noise and move on to see what else it is you can hear.

I can tell what it is that I heard loud and clear in about twenty words. Basically because it's been the bell whistle that's sent me off into a lot of deep dives on Trump. When Mr Thayer went about saying, in particular around what he had to say about the Trump campaign it really didn't come as much of a surprise. In the end, at least for me it closes the gap as to why Arizona was chosen as the focus point to election fraud scheme, as that's exactly what it is. It was meant to keep people's attention focused on a state where corruption is the normal course of taking care of business, it's actually, basically pretty much like he stated, is a business in itself. They don't have to fear anybody doing anything about it because of the fear involved of attempting to do anything about it. That's why they were the perfect fit for deflection while they did similarly elsewhere like what was witnessed happening in Michigan in the last election. The deliberate removal from the primary ballot of not only political candidates who stood a good chance of winning against their opponents but the removal of those holding judicial seats also. While everyone is focused on a state where there will be no accountability to open admissions, evidences presented, they are using the same tactics to gain control of battleground states. They are choosing who gets elected.

When leadership is corrupt it takes down younger generation. So the problem you have is a follow the leader mentality.

That's all you really needed to hear out of everything that he said unless of course you want to know how that relates to the actions of the Trump team who make his job harder.

The biggest issue, I've said this publicly so I'll say it here. I really get on President Trump and his team not for what they claim in election fraud but for some of the manner which they went about pressing the claims. One of the reasons is because it makes what I do much harder. When we look at this we are not looking it this, and I think Ms. Breger said it and I'll repeat it, I don't work for any political party. I never have. I've never been employed by one. I don't donate to candidates, there's a lot of candidates I love a lot, I think are terrific but I don't donate to candidates. I didn't vote in the last two election cycles because we were looking at election fraud. We do everything we can to be very neutral. I am looking very specifically at public officials and whether there's corruption within their ranks, that's it. I will say something that I don't think is all that ground breaking but it didn't come up yesterday but that is three of the board of supervisor members of Maricopa County have deep problems and in fact have more than deep problems. I won't elaborate yet because we are still going through documents, but, uh, they are not democrats. On the other hand we have democrats certainly as what came out yesterday in terms of Katie Hobbs and Adrian Fontase who are democrats, we are very equal opportunity of this because what we are asked to do and what we are tasked to do is to be neutral and not let whatever our political influence take, take, take control over us. Some of the problems, some of the stuff I think the Trump campaign didn't recognize was that when they went to shut down the border states, California, Arizona, Mexico, Florida certainly as well, technically a border state it gets a lot of illegal immigration, um, when, when President Trump decided he was going to take that on and do that and put up a border fence what I don't think they fully understood, I don't think his campaign and ultimately his staff full understood, was that you are shutting down a multi billion dollar enterprise. This is not about parties.

If there's a point where you need to trust your instincts it's found in what he had to say next...

um, by the way this is not just coming from me. Harvard University released a report, um I think it was last month. I think it was in January, released a report stating that not only is Arizona the number one state for public corruption but the legislature is the worse in the country for taking bribes, so this just isn't coming from me. You got now universities doing these studies on this and you, you can argue methodologies all you want but when they're coming up with the same conclusions that's when you start to have a problem.

I gather that if it wasn't enough that Trump entered upon the world stage by focusing on the border states illegal immigration problem by declaring illegal immigrants rapist, by declaring the rapid amount of drugs and cash flowing illegally across our border, pouncing on election fraud in Arizona and compounding the Lake's campaign problems with her on day one border initiatives than by all means a recently released study by Harvard should be the finally blow that hits the head of the nail by the hammer for you. Those handy dandy studies that just appear in a timely manner out of nowhere, usually, of course, by a well known and respected university like Harvard or Stanford. I mean really what more could you ask for outside of the already unquestionable evidence that Thayer claims to have accumulated. That's when you know his evidence might not be so unquestionable, after all he does make claims of how easy it is to enter false data into data bases. Maybe that's why the documents rolling across the screen that were presented where marked with not an official document. Of course they could be copies but they could also be copies of stuff that was easily entered into a data base that wasn't suppose to be entered into the data base. Those young soles at Harvard must be brave to accuse the Arizona legislature of running the most politically corrupt apparatus in the country, it actually go against what Thayer's claims of the ambitiousness younger generation that can be so easily led into a lifetime of corruption. But, but, but congratulations on your bravery says Mark Finchem, Nicole Peason and just about the entire select committee on voter fraud, now go about your business because nothing will ever be done about it, better to be safe than sorry in that regard. In all the election integrity commissions meetings held since the 2020 election nothings ever been done about it and it didn't matter what state held them. Zilch. Notta, Nothing. But do pat yourself on the back for your bravery.

Here's the thing about this. There's only one person out there trying to polish a tarnished image. There's only one person out there that has set up an America First advisory committee. That committee, stationed in New York, is setting up a "on day one" move that will move in and transition the government by removing all those pesky people still left that Mr Thayer claims are still the good people within certain departments of the government that aren't corrupted or afraid to do anything about it. People whom he has mentioned he has made contact with. People whom he claims can instill hope in the processes that our government is not hopelessly lost to corruptions seen with agencies like the FBI. That may hold true today but accusations such as this tend to take a long time. If they can keep people focused on Arizona until the time approaches for this proposed transition the distraction will work. That transition was promised by none other than former Trump advisor Kelly Ann Conway, her exact words "I'll promise you that on day one...". Of course with individuals Mr Thayer claims will have no problem playing the follow the leader mentality. Sort of how Trump would term "this may open up jobs for some of our young people" when referring to deaths of elderly set about from the pandemic, the man has no remorse. As Thayer said this is not about parties. He is right in that regard. No one party goes through the process and expenses of setting up a whole new government when they don't even know if they will win. This is something that has to be a joint venture. They will know who they will want to replace and come to agreement on who they will vet to move the process forward efficiently.

For me personally I have no problem seeing the beginning to the end of this now, thanks to Mr Thayer keeping me focused where I need to be. For others if they don't wake up it'll be way to late. Though I think it's fair it's say it's already to late. There's one thing I can predict with the upmost certainty out of all this and that is Thayer won't be sharing his book proceeds like he has all his information. The only consolation I see coming forth from all this as it stands now is should I shed any tears I can get sixty six percent off My Pillow towels using the promo codes scrolling across the screen of his interviews.